LOS ANGELES - Presidential longshot Ron Paul beat the one-day fundraising record Monday afternoon when a special pledge drive yielded over $3 million in an 18-hour period. The record was previously held by fellow Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Paul, who stands out as the singular opponent of the Iraq War among the major candidates of both parties, rose to prominence following controversial remarks made during the Republican debates regarding the events of September 11th. The Paul campaign has seen a steady rise in popularity in the months following, highlighted most noteably by his frequent victories in online polls. Paul's popularity among the online community gave rise to early accusations of online poll tampering, leading to speculation as to the actual size of his constituency. Supporters hope Monday's fundraising results will put those accusations to rest.

Hating the troops is sort of my calling card. The feeling of revulsion I have for people who sign up with an organization whose only purpose is to kill (considering the military hasn't been used for strict national defense in...well, ever) has tended to cover every member of the military, with notable exceptions: those who, though naive in joining, are horrified enough by the deeds of the military that they refuse to deploy to warzones. Most of them have just skipped country to Canada or hid out at home, which is fine, but lately the news has been full of the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, who publicly and loudly has proclaimed the illegality of and his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Now, I'm not a gooshy type that tears up at grand proclamations of principle, but this guy has balls and I am really amazed at his intellect and clarity. Fuck the douchebags occupying Iraq -- Watada is the hero.

"There was a long time when I went through depression because I told myself I didn't have a choice. That I joined the military and I had only one duty and that was to obey what I was told, regardless of how I felt inside. It really hurt me for a long time because I imprisoned myself by telling myself I didn't have a choice. It didn't matter that I might be sent to prison. I was already in prison, my freedom was already gone.

"When I told myself that I do have a choice, I have a choice to do what is morally right, what is in my conscience, and what I can live with for the rest of my life--even though that comes with consequences, I do have that choice. When I realized that, and when I chose what was right for me, I became free again. And I think everybody has to remember that and to realize that is what is important in life."

This, when most soldiers can barely scrawl their own names.

Problem: War in Iraq is fueling terrorism and Islamic radicalism.

Solution: Stay the course.

Translation: We started this fire and, by God, we are going to keep throwing gasoline on it 'til it goes out.

For drug possession.

I feel so much safer knowing that the 73 year old legend has been busted along with Tony Sizemore, 59, St. Cloud, Fla.; Bobbie Nelson, 75, Briarcliff, Texas; Gates Moore, 54, Austin, Texas; David Anderson, 50, Dallas. Obviously, all are seasoned and dangerous criminals and subversives.

Let's face it, if Willie can corrupt the kick ass All-American Toby Keith, then could the fall of Western civilization be that far behind?

JK Rowling clashed with airport security after they attempted to confiscate the manuscript of what, critics and fans believe, will be the explosive finale to the Harry Potter series.

Eventually, Rowling was allowed to board her plane with the manuscript, which, fortuitously, did not detonate in flight.

That's right, you heard it here first. Vietnam II is on its way.

Impossible you say?

Well, I say you are wrong. I think that Vietnam is the perfect contestant to be chosen as the next victim err... lucky winner in the neocon global democracy crusade. Here's how I see it,

1. Vietnam is ruled by an oppressive socialist party dictatorship. This alone means little to those seeking to use war for the spread of democracy, they need a more convincing impetus. Well, they got it. Vietnam has confirmed that they have arrested Cong Thanh Do a 47 year old Vietnameze born American citizen and democracy activist. Do's California congresswoman has said,

"The Vietnamese government has a track record of human rights violations against people who work to bring freedom and democracy to Vietnam through peaceful means...His incarceration is outrageous. I will do everything possible to guarantee Cong Thanh Do's prompt release."

Peaceful means have failed. It's time to bring out the guns.

2. The war makers have access to a large and passionate anti-communist Vietnamese Diaspora that could be called on to fabricate intelligence about WMD programs and to tell hyperbolic stories of torture and human rights violations.

3. The US "cut and ran" after getting their asses handed to them in Vietnam I (which, of course, led to the domino like spread of communism all across the globe.) Unfortunately, according to Bush this "send[s] the wrong message to the enemy. It would tell them that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run. It would vindicate the terrorists' tactics."

The US government cannot afford to look weak especially after 9/11. They must show the world how tough they are, how they will not cut and run and how they will stay in every fight no matter how long it takes to defeat every enemy. Clearly, Vietnam I is a thorn in the side of the American tough guy image.

So, that's it. In my opinion it's not a question of if but when. Bring 'em on!

However, there is one pressing conundrum that Washington's warmongering elite will have to solve. Much of the pro-democracy opposition to the current regime in Vietnam has been labeled terrorists by both Hanoi and Washington. That means that a war for democracy in Vietnam would give aid to terrorists or, conversely, fighting the terrorists would help prop up a violent and oppressive undemocratic regime. How would the impeccable, moral minds of the Washington war crowd ever deal with such a terrible contradiction.

Ok, so really it's only one reason that I'm going to write about here but I have two stories to tell.

First, a few months back I received an email from a Chinese businessman who lives and works in mainland China. I have been dealing with this man and the company that he represents for a couple of years now and most correspondence has been pretty typical. This email was different.

He was so excited to tell me, and probably countless other business acquaintances, about the birth of his first child, a beautiful little girl. I could sense his jubilation in the way that his already broken English seemed more broken than usual, as if he had written this message on the fly, perhaps writing from the hospital or in a stolen moment in the office before he rushed home to be with his newborn. And to top it off, this proud papa attached some absolutely adorable photos. (After seeing the photos I asked my wife if I could have a Chinese baby. She said, "NO".)

Though simple in nature, it was a remarkable experience for me and I was happy that he took the time to share his joy.

The second story I have to share happened just this week.

For the last few months my company has been doing business with a firm in Austria. They are building some custom machinery and tooling that we will be using in our factory. It is some really cutting edge stuff and we're excited to get our hands on it.

Last month a few of my coworkers went to Austria to test the equipment and to make the final arrangements. They had an amazing time. The Austrians were great hosts and spent a lot of time and effort entertaining our guys after hours. All had a great time and many alcoholic beverages were consumed.

Then, this week we finally received our shipment of tools and equipment from Austria. We were already excited to crack open the crates though we had no idea that the contents were far more pleasing than we imagined. As we looked into the open containers we found that our Austrian friends had taken great care in filling all of the empty spaces with milk crates full of beer.

This Friday, after work, we are going to have a beer fest and take lots of photos to send back across the puddle to our new best friends in Austria.

So, that is why I love international trade. It gives us the opportunity to see people from across the globe, not as scary and threatening foreigners who are a part of the monolithic "Chinese" or "Europeans", but as fellow humans, individuals, parents, children, businessmen, innovators, friends and drinking buddies.

Provision must be made for the poor. Throughout human history, this has been the refrain of the compassionate. Indeed, generosity towards the poor is one of the most universally recognized virtues, it is present nearly without exception in religious and secular philosophies. I know there are people who will, if for no other reason than to play devil's advocate, argue against it until they're blue in the face, but for the purpose of this article, let us start from this premise: that a virtuous man has a moral obligation to help the poor.

Yet in the modern era, we find something very different. Instead of starting from this individual's obligation and following it through to the consequence of generosity, we live in a society where the poor are said to be entitled to this provision merely for being poor. The individual moral responsibility may yet exist, but it is purely academic: the state will see to it that by hook or by crook this entitlement is received.

This has actually perverted what has long been a pretty much universal human virtue. The people who mere generations ago would have tirelessly worked to provide for the poor now largely work just as tirelessly to create new entitlements for the poor.

In my opinion, this is largely to blame for the knee jerk negative reaction of many individuals when the notion of helping the poor arises. Painful history tells us that the man who casually holds out his right hand in a modern call for compassion is usually far busier with his left hand, rifling through our pockets for whatever we might through greed or necessity see fit to withhold from him.

And to what end? None, save making the burden of that compassion easier to bear. The curse of the virtuous throughout history has been that, no matter how much good they really do, it never seems like enough. Modern society has sought refuge from this by collectivizing the burden. If the poor are not sufficiently provided for, it is society's fault for being selfish, not the individual's fault for not trying hard enough.

In the end, it is the poor that suffer. Between the inefficient and ofttimes downright malevolent ministrations of the state and the glib dismissal by respectable members of society who have already "done their share" in paying their taxes, it's no wonder that so much of the world's population remain mired in nearly inescapable destitution.

The state welfare office will never be the loving benefactor that the poor need, for much the same reason the prison warden will never be the caring reformer that the criminal desperately needs. They not only owe their livelihoods to the continued existence of their respective charges, they stand to benefit greatly from an increase in the problems they are expected to solve.

The poor may receive the basic necessities of survival from the state. The state may even be exceedingly generous with creature comforts that distract them from their station. And why shouldn't they be? A percentage of the money spent will inevitably trickle into the pockets of various bureaucrats along the way. Besides, it's not their money to begin with.

But whether they're kept on the brink of starvation as in the developing world or carefully sequestered in the shabby government housing of the west, the message is clear: the provision is being made, your tax dollars at work. Moreover, if it seems insufficient, petitioning the government is the correct course of action. The individual just can't have that big an impact.

At least, not anymore. When approaching the average well-meaning individual to assist in some private scheme to help the poor, one is met with a mix of incredulity and indignation. "I gave at the office", my obligation has been met, and how dare someone approach me and say it's not enough. When one considers how much that average person is giving to the government, and what an emphasis "helping the poor" generally gets in the government's various propagandae he must imagine he's already been exceedingly generous.

But when one examines the fact of the matter, he likely hasn't. The government has taken a few thousand dollars from him, but only a few dollars of that was dispensation for the poor. Of that, much is eaten up by bureaucracy, so that he may find, if he were permitted to follow the money trail, that he has given mere pocket change.

Most likely, if he were left to his own devices, he would give more. Even if not, when presented with a request for aid he no longer can delude himself into thinking he has already provided it amply. That is perhaps the greatest harm done by the modern welfare state, for it has salved the consciences of those who have done precious little, and discourages the well-meaning individual from thinking he can affect change in the lives of others on his own.

BBC says "Hometowns mourn slain US troops":

Family and friends of two US soldiers taken captive and killed in Iraq have been paying tribute to them.

"Our son... died for the freedom of everybody in the United States," Thomas Tucker's father Wes told NBC.

No, your son died for NOTHING. He was in Iraq taking my freedoms and Iraqis' freedoms, and he paid for this with his life. Deal with it.

This week, there has been a piece of news that has captured the imaginations of media outlets the world over. Of course, I speak of the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

From salivating pundits on the various cable news stations to the gleeful heads of state, the death of this villain has united popular opinion in a way that we don't often see. President Bush, for his part, declared this a decisive victory in the war on terrorism.

Not decisive in the traditional sense of the term, it would seem. No sooner had the news hit the wire when various government officials began to temper the optimism with the fact that al-Zarqawi was just one man, and that in the grand scheme of things his death probably wasn't going to lead to a decline in violence in Iraq.

Brushing aside such a decided down note, we watched as the news outlets eagerly ran story after story about the elaborate planning that lead to this death. Oh, sure, it probably never would have happened without the apparent betrayal of al-Zarqawi by others within al-Qaeda, but even still, it required one of those stunning demonstrations of military might that make such great fodder for the evening news. At least many hundreds of personnel were involved, though if the CNN Headline News story is to be believed, it could well be considerably greater. Missiles ain't cheap, nor are umpteen planes and the unknown quantity of soldiers, I think we're safe in assuming this singular operation cost many millions of dollars, at a bare minimum.

That leaves me wondering, personally, what the point of all this was. Was it worth millions to kill a single man, especially when that death isn't going to bring an end to the war?

My fellow pacifist Michael Berg doesn't think so. Having lost his own son at the hands of al-Zarqawi, he still sees no cause for celebration in this death. This has led, rather predictably to some very public castigations of Mr. Berg for not being sufficiently happy.

But why should he be? Al-Zarqawi's death will not bring back his son. The death does not bring the war any closer to a conclusion, indeed the zeal that has sprung forth after finally managing to kill somebody, anybody, of import in the insurgency is if anything going to hurt the chances of an early withdrawal.

I would propose, instead, that perhaps the rest of you are a little too happy about this whole thing. One murderer is dead, killed by others, and thousands upon thousands yet remain to ply their trades upon their respective segments of the Iraqi populace. Is this truly cause for celebration?

Underscoring this, mourners in al-Zarqawi's hometown are hoping for a thousand more like him, to kill the enemies who kill them. Judging from the joy so many feel in one meaningless death of one high profile enemy, it's hard to imagine them not getting their wish, many times over in the future.